> I don't like telling the players how to play thier chars, but I think that
> when it is violating a part of the setting/genre, I *need* to do so.  I
> just don't like it.

In this hobby of ours, it's common to emphasize "role-playing" over "game".
Occasionally, I have to remind myself and my players that there is a game
aspect to this and that, regardless of how much they don't like it, there
will be occasions where their characters' actions may not be their of their
own choice for a period of time.

It has to boil down to a matter of player/GM trust; I'm very lucky in that I
have players who trust the GM (me) to not mess with their characters
arbitrarily or capriciously, and in turn, I give the players a lot of leeway
in other areas, f'rinstance,  I'll always give a bonus to a well-described
combat move and my players are free to make up little details of a battle
scene that work for their (slight advantage).

This last bit requires a touch of explanation.  I'd set up a situation where
a superpowered "brick" was confronted by a host of "superagent" types
(low-level goons with high-tech gear).  The setting was a city street.  The
player said, "OK, Nemesis picks up a manhole cover, says "Can't we DISCUS
this?" and throws the manhole cover frisbee-style at the goons, trying to
knock several over.  Now, I hadn't specified that a manhole cover was
present, the brick had no ranged attack powers (this was Champions), and I
hadn't really planned for this approach to combat, but I let it happen
because it worked.  Later, when Nemesis encountered the Blood Red King and
was paralyzed with fright, the player understood that it served the story
and went with it without trying to break free every phase.

At least that's how these things work for me.

Theron
Houston

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/